I apologise for the language in the following statement. It goes against all that I admire: brevity is for me very much the soul of wit, and more besides. However the hyperlinks embedded within it are an interesting way to start the ball rolling. I am starting with a monologue which may turn into a dialogue but will hopefully end an ‘panalogue’ (sorry again to bombard you with such a nonsense word). Also I would like to avoid certain pigeon holes and preconceived ideas, so this is getting it out of the way:
There is no specific Speech Act in any of the things I hope to make. In this sense they intersect with reality and not just the world of speech acts and their respective perlocutionary effects, which have a specific teleology.
(Sorry about this, forgive my logorrhoea, it’s done now)
By this I mean that I see the sensual world that we inhabit as a mere shadow of the supersensible world, where true objectivity resides. This is of course a world which we can never fully perceive. When an object is made it is part of the totality of space and time, it can be nothing else, no matter how hard it tries. It is not simply an attempt to make sense of the unknowable through the systems of language and mathematics we have created. These systems are flawed and create a reality but do not encompass the whole reality of ‘everything’.
Conceptual art is pure speech act and can exist only in one strata of reality, that of the perceivable part of the world. It lives only in it’s perlocutionary effect, what else can it do? It can be transformed by interpretation into a phenomenon but initially it has no noumenon (unless of course you class it as a small section of everything else, but I don’t think these things often are thought of in that way).
I am not striving in this endeavour to create pure objectivity, far from it. All things are part of the whole and exist within a spectrum that passes from the objective to the subjective. Purity resides in the knowledge that everything contains shades of everything else.
The work reflects my life, it’s scale, and the environment I inhabit. The language I use and encounter and the various discourses I engage in. This is inevitable, the specific details of what I have made you will have to deal with yourself.
There is no specific Speech Act in any of the things I hope to make. In this sense they intersect with reality and not just the world of speech acts and their respective perlocutionary effects, which have a specific teleology.
(Sorry about this, forgive my logorrhoea, it’s done now)
By this I mean that I see the sensual world that we inhabit as a mere shadow of the supersensible world, where true objectivity resides. This is of course a world which we can never fully perceive. When an object is made it is part of the totality of space and time, it can be nothing else, no matter how hard it tries. It is not simply an attempt to make sense of the unknowable through the systems of language and mathematics we have created. These systems are flawed and create a reality but do not encompass the whole reality of ‘everything’.
Conceptual art is pure speech act and can exist only in one strata of reality, that of the perceivable part of the world. It lives only in it’s perlocutionary effect, what else can it do? It can be transformed by interpretation into a phenomenon but initially it has no noumenon (unless of course you class it as a small section of everything else, but I don’t think these things often are thought of in that way).
I am not striving in this endeavour to create pure objectivity, far from it. All things are part of the whole and exist within a spectrum that passes from the objective to the subjective. Purity resides in the knowledge that everything contains shades of everything else.
The work reflects my life, it’s scale, and the environment I inhabit. The language I use and encounter and the various discourses I engage in. This is inevitable, the specific details of what I have made you will have to deal with yourself.